Posted on 09/24/2007 6:15:44 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect have asked a federal appeals court to overturn their convictions, saying they were charged with a nonexistent crime and convicted after the jury was given improper instructions by the trial judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
That we know of, but as I said, that was complete conjecture. I normally just talk about the facts, but I took a moment to wonder why all these other agents that were supposedly there and hearing shots just stood around and didn’t even bother to check to see if some of their fellow agents were being shot.
When I speculate, I label it speculation, and I give my reasons for speculating but don’t try to pretend it’s the truth.
Yeah, but it’s only Bob that get’s personal.
The report is an investigative report that includes the statement of the two men that implicated Davila. There is no evidence that the report contains any other evidence. I haven’t seen Hunter specify any other evidence, or any otehr person who claims to have seen the report.
The report is just another statement of the same claim reported first by WND and then by a lot of other papers. But it’s all the SAME piece of evidence.
A report of a claim is not an additional piece of evidence.
If you write something, and I quote you, that’s not corrobaration.
If there is other evidence, it may convince me you are right. But until I see the other evidence, what I know is not enough for me to even state that Davila smuggled a 2nd load, much less attack Sutton for not putting him in prison for it.
But that’s what others want to do, ruin Sutton because he hasn’t imprisoned Davila when there is no evidence of any facts that would allow him to do so.
I don’t see where my speculation is negated by “tons of testimony”, but maybe you’ll enlighten me. So far as I know, i’ve taken the testimony, mostly of Compean and Ramos, and added to it in places where nobody has said what happened. I could be wrong, it’s been a while since I read the testimony, or other reports.
I can’t say about Bob, but I just want to know the truth. That I get attacked for it is telling to me, but only because I know I’m trying to understand the truth.
I had a lot more, but it’s pointless.
Nope. Only if he was innocent.
Who here is “totally open borders, and pro illegal alien”?
Name names, and show evidence.
I know that’s not a usual request for these discussions, but try anyway.
No, my “later claimed” was not emphasizing “later” as opposed to “earlier”, but simply stating what he said his reason was for the shooting. My emphasis was that it was his claim, and not a “fact” nor something I was convinced of.
Or should I say I was not compelled to agree his life was threatened, or that of certainty he had a right to shoot at the car. Therefore, I did not agree that the prosecuter was evil for persuing the case, or that the jury was wrong for convicting him.
If the prosecutor had decided not to press charges, I wouldn’t fight to get charges pressed. If the jury had found him not guilty I wouldn’t be protesting in the streets.
Just as in the C/R case, I’m simply looking at all the evidence, and deciding that there was no obvious miscarriage of justice, or some absolute certainty that the prosecutor is evil and the men are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Remember, I’m arguing against people who not only want to free C/R, but believe there is some conspiracy to demoralize the BP in order to appease mexico. I’m arguing against people who are trying to destroy a man’s reputation with no real evidence, because they don’t like the outcome of a criminal case.
Our legal system is not meant to become personal. If a prosecutor can’t bring cases he feels are worthy because of political pressure of mob mentality, the justice system will not be able to be impartial — it will be ruled by whoever can get the biggest mob or buy off the best politicians.
Sure, that means that a few prosecutors who DO have personal motives can do bad things with a little less scrutiny. But for the most part the system works. After all, as bad as he was, NiFong is paying the price, and there’s few people anywhere who are defending him — so it seems you can get a broad consensus when there is real misconduct.
It’s possible that at some point in time there will be evidence against Sutton that might lead one to the same conclusion. Right now there’s isn’t, but that hasn’t stopped a lot of people from attacking him.
YEs, that’s it. The government admitted they didn’t have an investigative report that showed what they claimed. They did not say the claims were false, just that they couldn’t show the claims were true.
BTW, that means that the claims are unfounded and baseless. So don’t get me wrong. But the government did not admit to lying about the claims, just about having an investigative report that contained the claims.
Realise that any claims of things being said should have been in an investigative report, so that would mean that whatever statements people were relying on weren’t made to investigators, at least not those who were recording them for their reports.
I’m not trying to minimize the error, but when this story came out it was reported by some that the government admitted lying about the case, when in fact Skinner was admitting that he had been misled and had made claims that were not true.
People use the word lie because they want to make it sound like Skinner purposely misled congress and was caught, but that was not the case.
YEs, that’s it. The government admitted they didn’t have an investigative report that showed what they claimed. They did not say the claims were false, just that they couldn’t show the claims were true.
BTW, that means that the claims are unfounded and baseless. So don’t get me wrong. But the government did not admit to lying about the claims, just about having an investigative report that contained the claims.
Realise that any claims of things being said should have been in an investigative report, so that would mean that whatever statements people were relying on weren’t made to investigators, at least not those who were recording them for their reports.
I’m not trying to minimize the error, but when this story came out it was reported by some that the government admitted lying about the case, when in fact Skinner was admitting that he had been misled and had made claims that were not true.
People use the word lie because they want to make it sound like Skinner purposely misled congress and was caught, but that was not the case.
And of course, no testimony was given to the jury about these “claims”. So they have no bearing on the conviction of the two men. It’s just another thing people can throw out there to try to cloud the issue to claim that Sutton falsely tried these men.
Nobody here interpreted that statement to be an actual claim of wanting to kill mexicans. It was given as something someone would say in some sort of macho statement, not to be taken as a plan of attack.
So no, it’s not nearly as bad. It was a statement not supported by evidence, it had the effect of reinforcing the image of Compean as someone who might be careless when discharging his duties. It may if believed have caused an investigator to take his duty more seriously in checking compean out, maybe unfairly.
It wasn’t in the trial testimony, and it wasn’t ever used to claim he should be in jail because he planned to shoot mexicans. It was a “state of mind” quote.
So yes, as allegations go it was not as serious as the repeated claims here that Sutton is a traitor to our country.
After reading your comment below, met to totally discredit, with absolutely nothing to support such a statement, I'd say you are pal.
"Is it possible Compean was known for shooting his gun just to scare people".
I only have so many cheeks to turn from the myriad of insults and lies he threw my way.
Pinocchio is symbolic of lying--lies from Bob that I pointed out and he refused to acknowledge or retract.
I notice that you weren't their denouncing them. Thank you for your objectivity. /s
Well at least you now acknowledge that there WAS a report!
Your prior comment:
there was no EVIDENCE of a 2nd bust, only a story in the WND
I didn’t attack you.
You are telling me, that if you were arrested for murder in the middle of the night, you would immediately cooperate?
To each their own. I guess that's your perogative--but most every lawyer would say that is a foolish thing to do.
Thank you for the clarification.
DHS said there was damning “evidence” that Ramos and Compean were “out to shoot Mexicans” and promised to provide it to Congress.
They stalled for months before finally coming clean and saying there was no such evidence.
Yet you believe it still exists in some non-material form?
Do I really need to pull a bunch of articles documenting this before you concede?
You consider a comment that two Border Patrol agents, convicted and sent to prison for a total of 20+ years, were "out to shoot Mexicans", made in a formal meeting between Congressional representatives and officials of the Department of Homeland Security is just "some sort of macho statement"????
This is where you and I can completely part company if you think this type of behavior is acceptable, or even excusable (!!!), from our government officials.
You would only need to do that for the person that referred to it. Most everyone else understands that was a fabricated, uncorroborated statement and was only met to discredit, in an attempt to bring race into the mix.
Officials lying to elected representatives of Congress is not as bad as some anonymous person posting their personal opinion about a USA on an internet forum?
I can't even COMPARE the two, and certainly don't find the latter more serious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.